Guest Post: Nuclear Energy and the Value of CWIP

Jeff McMahon bases his argument against nuclear cost recovery “Editors Rebel Against Ratepayer Financing For Nuclear Plants,” on the sole premise that because natural gas is inexpensive at this point in time it will remain so for decades. Therefore, energy companies should rely solely on one source of electricity generation. Ignoring the old adage of not putting your eggs in one basket is as relevant in generation choices as it is in financial investments.

Energy companies evaluate a variety of factors to determine their generating mix and plan not in years, but rather decades ahead. Public utility commissioners do the same. They conduct an extensive analysis of the state’s demand growth commonly known as a “determination of needs” that looks at all methods of generation to see which ones are most suitable. Commissioners are also obligated to make sure there is diversification in the state’s generating portfolio, balance economic and environmental concerns and try to keep costs down.

Florida, for example, receives 62 percent of its electricity from natural gas and an overall 86 percent from fossil fuels. Natural gas may be low now, but history has proven on many occasions that low natural gas prices in the U.S. are not sustainable. Within the last month we’ve seen the price of natural gas spike to more than $30 per million BTU on the spot market in New England due to frigid weather and a shortage of natural gas pipeline capacity. So what did New England do to mitigate the impact? It imported significant amounts of electricity from the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York.

Here in lies the value of nuclear energy as it provides a stable, low-operating cost baseload source of electricity that offers a myriad of economic and environmental benefits. Nuclear cost recovery, commonly known as construction work in progress (CWIP), allows a utility to recover financing costs and return on equity. By doing so, a utility avoids paying “interest on interest” that would occur if all costs are held until the plant goes into service.

In Georgia, where Southern Co. and Georgia Power are building two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, just this past week the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the latest cost and schedule reports. One PSC staff member put the reasoning succinctly, saying the project “remains more economically viable than any other (fuel) resource, including a natural gas-fired alternative.”

In Georgia, CWIP is expected to save Southern Company’s ratepayers $300 million in financing costs during construction. CWIP also will reduce the in-service cost of the plant by $2 billion, saving customers additional financing costs over its expected 60-year life. The utility also has improved cash flows through CWIP that support stronger financial ratings, which result in lower interest costs for the project and all other utility investments over the long term. CWIP is allowed by public utilities and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to support the construction of baseload electricity plants and transmission lines for a simple reason: because it saves money for consumers and gets necessary infrastructure constructed.

New nuclear power plants also act as a macro-economic catalyst. The reliable, low-cost electricity provided by nuclear plants operates at close to 90 percent capacity. Thus, nuclear’s forward price and supply stability provide a high level of confidence in attracting capital formation to start new businesses and expand existing businesses, which results in job formation and expanded tax revenues. The Plant Vogtle project is about one-third completed and has already generated almost 5,000 jobs during the construction period and there will be about 700 permanent, high-paying jobs associated with the two new reactors when they’re completed by the end of this decade. In addition the average nuclear plant generates approximately $470 million a year in total output for the local community and about $40 million per year in total labor income. Nuclear also bring the environmental benefit of being the largest source of emission-free electricity.

Natural gas may be the preferred generation choice of today. But as Roman conquerors were warned during the celebrations of their triumphs; all glory is fleeting.

Don't forget that fugitive emissions of methane from the natural gas extraction step alone dwarf the carbon footprint from the entire nuclear lifecycle. Methane produces atmospheric damage in about a 70:1 ratio with CO2. Anyone who advocates any kind of energy system that increases the use of natural gas (e.g., windpower, since gas turbines need to be available for quick-start backup power) is no friend of the environment.

The reason you hear about AFUDC and CWIP around nuclear plants so much is because the amount of capital is much larger and the timeline is much longer. For a natural gas plant the capitalized interest and financing costs are a much lower percentage of the total cost of the power produced by the plant and therefore it isn't really a big deal how the financing is done.

Well, I understand that the interest is lower on gas-fired plants because they (1) cost less and (2) are built quicker. But the objections to CWIP are often philosophical ("why should I pay for a plant before I get the power?") so, I am still curious if CWIP is applied to the gas-fired plants.

excellent post, and I totally agree: allowing utilities to finance projects via CWIP-based rates is THE BEST way to get zero-carbon capacity working as quickly as possible. Ontario has done that creatively, in the case of Bruce Power -- see http://canadianenergyissues.com/2013/04/04/how-to-create-infrastructure-jobs-and-pay-for-clean-energy-public-and-private-models-deliver-success-in-ontario/

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.